In their zeal to limit access to abortion and destroy Planned Parenthood, the radical anti-choice movement is now seizing on the myth that sex selection abortions are epidemic in theUS. As such, they convinced anti-choice members of the US House to sponsor a bill to ban such abortions. The bill failed. But coincidentally, just before the vote, James O'Keefe protégé and well funded, radical anti-choice activist Lila Rose produced videos which, according to Bill O'Reilly, proved that the US is now following China's one child policy - a ludicrous assertion given that the government is not forcing anyone to have an abortion for any reason. But Bill and his fellow Catholic, anti-choice zealot pal, Laura Ingraham don't believe it and during last night's "Factor," both promoted what's hot in the anti-choice community and that includes praise for the hoax videos of Lila Rose which, according to Ingraham, is such great "journalism" that it deserves an award.

Bill reported that China's one child policy has resulted in a preponderance of male children and claimed "now that's happening here." His "proof" - the two Lila Rose videos that "show" that Planned Parenthood is participating in gender abortion." He showed part of a new "sting" video that, according to Bill, showed a Planned Parenthood encouraging a sex selection abortion when all the worker was doing was informing the actor that the termination of a pregnancy, based on sex selection, was her decision - in other words, informing a patient of a legal right that Bill O'Reilly wants criminalized. In Bill's world, Planned Parenthood should, as he does, lecture women about their reproductive choices.

Bill criticized President Obama for not "condemning" the House vote to ban sex selection abortion. He then played video of the White House press secretary explaining why the administration opposed the bill because it's onerous provisions regarding criminal prosecution of doctors who would have to determine the "motivations" of a "private decision." Bill claimed that "it's not quite true" because the criminal prosecution would be only if the doctors "knowingly" aborted a fetus based on sex selection. After he summarized the vote tally, he solemnly pronounced that "gender based abortion is legal in theUS." His guest, fellow anti-choice zealot, Laura Ingraham, snorted derisively.

After praising Bill for his "great" "Talking Points," she launched the "pro-life" agitprop. She claimed that it isn't about pro-choice and pro-life but about "basic human decency" and "choosing to go down the road to barbarism or humanity." She accused the administration of lying about the bill. Bill agreed and read part of the bill that, according to Bill and Laura got doctors off the hook because "they would have to knowingly know" about the reason for the abortion. Laura got into some legalize about "discerning the intent."

Bills said that the "real atrocity" is that the bill is symbolic because women wouldn't admit to their motives. But he asserted that "it sends a message." (That we don't trust women?) He then played video of Dem. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee who, yesterday, was accused, by Fox Nation, of defending the killing of members of one sex. She said that "we're going back to the days of coat hangers..." - that halycon time when women were forced to take drastic measure to terminate a pregnancy - a time that Bill and Laura yearn to go back to. As Bill ranted about how sex selection abortion is "OK" with Lee and the president, Laura said that they should be asked if they feel it's right for men to coerce them into the procedure. (As opposed to Bill O'Reilly shaming them?) The radical anti-choice Ingraham brayed about the "extremist" positions of Obama and the left, including NARAL, who are, according to Laura, trying to control the agenda. ROFLMAO - as opposed to the well funded anti-choice lobby (including Bill and Laura's Church) that lobbies the GOP?

Bill referenced the right wing Media Research Center's claim that the evil, librul media is avoiding this issue. He pronounced "unless you're watching the Fox News channel or listening to Laura on the radio or some other hate talk radio, you don't know anything about" what he said is "a big story." Ingraham said the mainstream media should be doing the kind of investigation that Lila Rose is doing and - ready for it - that Lila Rose "should win a journalism award for what she's done to expose the truth about this."

If you're watching O'Reilly, you won't know that Lila Rose's videos are hoaxes that have resulted in no criminal prosecutions of Planned Parenthood. You won't learn anything about the gender inequality that leads to sex selection or that most abortions occur before the sex can be determined. You certainly won't be told that there is no evidence to support the claim that sex selection abortions are a problem in the US and that PRENDA targeted certain minority communities. You won't know that medical groups opposed the bill based on concerns about confidentiality and how, according to the bill, doctors could be prosecuted if the woman's reason for the abortion is disclosed after the fact. Lawyer Laura didn't mention that relatives of the woman could allege that a future abortion is based on sex selection and petition the court to stop the abortion.

But who needs facts when the "fair & balanced" tag team of Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham tell you all you need to know! And Lila Rose as an award winning journalist - seriously?

A totally phony controversy. There are no limits on family size in the USA unlike in overpopulated China so the sex-selection factor is rather moot. Besides 40 some years of Roe. v. Wade (with no reporting requirements like what these two Fox News blowhards want) and the sex ratio of births remains healthy. Nor is it likely to change. In this society, where women are as well educated as men, no survey would show any statistically significant preference for one sex in an embryo over the other.

Actually, Kevin, this bill was a rare case of requiring a 2/3 majority of those present and voting* to pass. (I believe I read that at ThinkProgress.) Since that means 290 votes (with a full House—pardon the pun), and the GOPers are currently about 50 votes shy of that number, they had no chance of getting this (latest) non-jobs-related bill through the House. (I just double-checked and found an article at Feministing.com that confirmed the 2/3 requirement. Apparently, the bill was being considered under a suspension of House rules.)

*I really don’t quite understand how this actually works. The final vote was 246 (Y), 168 (N) and 17 Not voting. If ALL those representatives were in the chamber (ie, “present”), does this mean that 288 votes were needed to pass (which is 2/3 of the total 431) or just 276 (2/3 of the 414 who actually voted)? At any rate, there weren’t enough GOPers to ensure passage (and there were actually 7 GOPers who voted against the bill and 8 GOPers who “didn’t” vote). And the 20 Dems who voted for this bill need to be voted out of office.

The bill was an obvious attempt at a “gotcha” vote to smear Democrats by painting them as voting against a moral issue. The fact that they couldn’t get the GOP votes to put it through speaks volumes to the failure of this idea.